from the beyond-bogus-into-potentially-damaging dept

IP Arrow claims to represent Zuffa Inc., better known as the parent company of the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship.) We know algorithms are flawed but whatever software IP Arrow is deploying seems to randomly collect links and dump them in a DMCA notice. (Second theory: an IP Arrow employee's personal searches are somehow making their way onto the submitted forms.)

The UFC is notorious for aggressively pursuing infringement of its PPV events. Apparently, there's plenty of pre-recorded stuff floating around the net and the UFC wants that gone, too. Unfortunately for the UFC, it gave this job to IP Arrow. In return, IP Arrow has filed a DMCA request claiming (remember, this request is a sworn statement) that the UFC is the rights holder for (possible) child porn.

I'll go ahead and make the bold statement that these photos of naked teenagers are not Zuffa/UFC's "work." I can't (or rather won't) attempt to verify whether these photos are actual child porn. But that's not really the issue. The fact is that IP Arrow is issuing takedown links to files that appear to be child porn while making the claim that Zuffa/UFC hold the copyright to these photos.

This isn't the only issue with the DMCA request, but it's by far the most damaging one. The rest of the notice contains some links to UFC content, but those links are the minority. This isn't a case of a few inadvertent links being swept up because of similar keywords or file names. This is a nearly-random link dump that requests takedowns of a wide variety of content completely unrelated to the UFC.

That's just a sampling of what's claimed to be UFC's copyrighted content by IP Arrow.

According to Google's transparency report, IP Arrow is new to the anti-piracy game, having first showed up on August 5th. Since then, it has been very busy, firing off 61 takedown requests for 47,000 links in just over two weeks. Its other requests haven't been much better in terms of targeting only infringement of its clients' work. (Other clients are Lynda.com and Lionsgate Films.)

A takedown request on behalf of Zuffa/UFC sent August 5th asks for the removal of (among several other things) episodes of Big Bang Theory, a version of Nero Burning ROM and an album by the Handsome Furs. Here's an unedited chunk of one request, which shows the range of content IP Arrow is attempting to take down.

Yes. IP Arrow is even asking to have the entire results of a search for the term ".rar" taken down.

Yes. That's right. According to IP Arrow, Lynda.com has produced a variety of pornographic videos, including "icest rape porn." Much like Zuffa/UFC above, I'm sure Lynda.com appreciates having its name associated with potentially illegal material.

Attempting to discover anything about IP Arrow's methodology is a dead end. Its website [which is down at the moment - cache link] is barely more than a placeholder (with a rather long TOS), sporting bold icons against a 1970s wood panel backdrop. It makes a few broad statements about how "different" its service is but contains no actual information as to how it performs this "different" work.

Judging from the quality of the DMCA notices it's issued, IP Arrow either has no idea what it's doing or just doesn't care. What's worse is that its submitted links have been taken down nearly 100% of the time, despite the fact that its DMCA notices are loaded with content its clients don't own. Its work for Lionsgate seems to be slightly more accurate than its takedowns for Lynda and Zuffa, but even those have a number of errors as well. Here it is attempting to take down infringing copies of one of the worst titled sequels ever, "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia."

Once again, a legitimate company is also a distributor of teen porn according to IP Arrow.

I've contacted the companies IP Arrow is currently issuing takedowns for (along with IP Arrow itself -- whose site is now mysteriously down) and will update if I receive any replies. While I appreciate the fact that these companies are seeking to protect their copyrighted material, I think they should be concerned that the agent representing them is now linking their names with very questionable porn. They should also be concerned that these sworn statements are also claiming they "own" copyrighted content belonging to others, but I would imagine things like "incest porn" and "15 year old vaginas" appearing on takedown requests in their names will be more troubling to them than the serialized false statements IP Arrow is issuing.

Soldier1: Major ootb, another anomaly wave incoming!
Major: Fear not, soldier, we shall not be defeat by Lord Masnick and his pesky facts and minions.
Soldier: But sir, this time the Anomaly Fault was not started by Lord Masnick, it was his evil General Tim "Lion" Cushing. Oh and we got hit by REPORT torpedoes.
Major: Hold on soldier, we have gone through this before.
Soldier: Now they are using the FOR THE CHILDREN phasers agains us!
Major: CUUUUUURSE YOU MASNICK!

So bad it's intentional?

Given how insanely scatter-shot these DMCA takedown requests are, and especially considering the addition of porn titles(both legal and very much not), I almost have to wonder if the company was set up to do this intentionally, to provide such blatantly obvious cases of DMCA abuse that someone takes them to court, wins handily against them, and thereby sets a precedent that provides at least some sort of penalty for bogus DMCA claims.

We'll call that, the 'best case scenario'.

In order of bad to worse, the other two possibilities I can think of are:

1. The company filing the DMCA takedown requests have realized that there are no punishments for filing bogus takedown requests, and have thrown together a program that just searches through torrent lists and grabs names at random.

2. The torrents/files listed are reflections of what the people at the company are looking for in their spare time, or 'as part of the job', in which case given some of them, they have some serious explaining to do.

I've taught you all to recognize anomalies!

NOW, if only you knew not to bother with them as if prove your case about the evils of copyright.

But wait! What does the long absent minion say? --
"While I appreciate the fact that these companies are seeking to protect their copyrighted material," -- Okay! You support copyright, should stop there...

And perhaps consider whether the titles are accurate: the minion specifically didn't check... A pirate plank is that file hosts like Megaupload can't bar uploads on basis of a mere title even when accurately named -- so you just go barking off with the specter of child porn exactly as David Cameron does.

Gotcha. Your tactics vary to whatever is useful to you.

@ Ninja: thanks for the advance publicity! You really show how little effect I have here, by going barking off before I even post. No matter how many times I or others point out that you're just embiggening my effect, you manifestly cannot stop yourself -- because you've nothing else to say.Mike supports copyright TOO! So why aren't you pirates attacking him at every turn? HMM?

Where's SWAT

It might be wise to CYA...

I may be off base here, but, I would change text just a tad bit so it doesn't give the full address for those child porn torrents. Yes, I know you're quoting a DMCA claim that links to a torrent, and that torrent might not be what it says it is, but still. All it takes is one gomer to complain to an authority that doesn't think bloggers can be journalists and before you know it you're being accused of linking to child porn.

Re: I've taught you all to recognize anomalies!

As an evil person, I will make my webserver name all files after raunchy child porn sounding names by randomly mixing type, age, and other basic facts so that anyone who issues a DCMA notice to me will be forced to say he owns the rights to child porn.

Of course the file name will have nothing to do with the content, it would be just some kind of random name generator.

Re:

Re: So bad it's intentional?

No, it's worse than random. You can't claim copyright ownership over a name of a file, so you should be a good copyright citizen and download the content to determine if it's infringing. Do you think they downloaded that content?

Re:

That's what I thought when I read this. Didn't seem like a bad idea. It could also be fun to manipulate hyperlink names to cause them to automatically file that the web page "Our-client-officially-anounces-the-transfer-of-all-copyrights-to-the-public-domain/" or "Hereby_Dismiss_all_charges_please_ignore_the_.html"

if a kid can rant on FB that he will hurt someone...and get arrested for like 90 days (or whatever the story was)....and a whole lot of other similar situations...why isn't anyone arresting the good people at Lynda.com or UFC?

Re:

I can't (or rather won't) attempt to verify whether these photos are actual child porn.

They aren't even actual files.

Those are fake results that simply mirror whatever you put into the search box. Unless there really are files on the net with the title of "hjgolfhjgflg". Try it, go to NowTorrents (or virtually any low-level torrent site) and type gibberish into the search box. You'll get 3-4 "sponsored" results at the top with whatever you typed in.

It's just a scam to get you to download malware.

Any time you search a site and the top 3-4 results are separate and say "sponsored", "full version", "high-speed" or "trusted download", avoid them like the plague that they are.

Re: I've taught you all to recognize anomalies!

Re:

That would certainly be worth a laugh. Either they maintain that they(through the proxy of the takedown company) own the rights to highly illegal movies, or they admit to committing perjury by filing bogus claims.

Re: Re: Re:

You're a douche. If you really are in a position to check the "inbound logs for the past 30 days" then why did you post anonymously? Why not post your name, your employer, and provide bona fides to distinguish yourself from the general detritus of the internet? If you really have access to the logs, then prove it, otherwise, remove your useless noise from this discussion.

Re: So bad it's intentional?

If UFC/IP Arrow claims to own these files and no one else comes forward to counter that claim UFC/IP Arrow gets to be responsible or the criminality in these files. That strikes me as a fair compromise. I just wonder who should go up the river for being the child pornographer of record.

It may not be the crime they committed but it is good enough to get them serving time for falsely claiming a copy right interest.

The explaination is easy

Actually, the explaination is easy. If you go to nowtorrents, each page has multiple listings on it. So as an example, searching for "japanese tube8 com" (one of their hot searches at the moment) brings up a number of music choices such as Weezer, King Diamond, and many others.

So basically, if the UFC comes up on these search pages, then the pages would get reported.

Further down, there is also a related "popular searches" which may have linked to UFC material.

The problem here is that you didn't look and didn't take a moment to understand what is going on, just fast to judgement. Perhaps you should be more concerned that this torrent site appears to be a great place to get child porn.

I'm thinking these companies get paid by their clients for successful removals.
So these IP protection companies they just send of a bunch of links to infringing or illegal content for removal to Google, with some from their actual client mixed in. They then report back to their clients that this many links were successfully removed.
Their clients then look at the report from Google showing how many links were removed, then they get paid accordingly.

Re:

Re: Re: I've taught you all to recognize anomalies!

A million times that. Although I'm more in line with some sort of attribution protection right now. It's inevitable that copyright will be distorted and turned into another monster by the industry even if we scrap it and start over I fear. The fool-proof solution would be to abolish it.

However, with much greater Public Domain incentives, better fair use protections (including socially accepted behaviors such as file sharing) and proper punishment for abuses it could workout for sure.

I am hurrying to Lynda.com, now maybe they'll get some traffic and maybe even some business. Sex sells! Beautiful scam! Put out some bogus DMCA's with links to porn and some blog writes about it to let everyone know where they are and voila you have a web site with people actually going to it.

They just admitted they owned these pictures. Give them the benefit of the doubt in their assertions. Arrest the executives and let the courts decide if they are truly involved in this or not. There should most definitely be arrests! That would send such a clear message to copyright holders. Bogus DMCA claims can cause you to be suspect of some very horrific charges so beware what you swear you own. Since they did swear, under oath, that they owned these pictures, this should really be an open and shut case for prosecutors.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There is nothing wrong with his interpretation of "teenager", it's "child" that he is wrong about. Look up child and you will see that it includes teenager. Child is a person between birth and full growth or a person below the age of majority.

Okay. How about adding some wood to the fire? Give these results to some truly hard nosed/hard up for votes local prosecutors. Let them run with it and make fools of themselves and the companies that are paying for these guys. Being linked in public to child porn will 'probably' make some of these companies think for a moment before just signing up for these pecker-woods. Sad to say that it still wouldn't stop some of them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's time for six strikes

Once again, the problem with the current DMCA procedure is that there's no punishment for wrong or bogus takedown claims. And even then, IP Arrow can simply say "that's what the client told us" and the client-company will say "We didn't tell IP Arrow to do that"... and no one's to blame!

I still like the idea of creating a six-strikes system against companies that file bogus takedown notices AND their "affiliates" that file claims on their behalf. I'd say to give them three strikes, but that's not needed when one takedown notice like this contains a lot more than six errors.

The DMCA copyright vendor for UFC has done an incredible disservice because they should have responded to media requests. I don't want to make this a commercial for dmca solutions but if their vendor doesn't do hand verfications, they fall into the category doing more harm than good. We reached out to the UFC as well but did not hear a reply so we hope this situation isn't a black eye on an entire copyright protection industry because dmca solutions does it the right way while many others don't.